Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

Are you alluding to the feds prescribing the "duties of office"?

I believe that's what this whole fiasco is about, federal overreach..

She's not a federal clerk, nor was she elected by federal election...
Correct.
 
Kentucky's Republican nominee for governor, Matt Bevin, said Tuesday that he supports Davis' "willingness to stand for her First Amendment rights," and if elected, would have people download marriage licenses on the Internet to file at clerk's offices just like other documents.

Conway, his Democratic opponent, has said he supports a new state law that would protect clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

..
 
Kentucky's Republican nominee for governor, Matt Bevin, said Tuesday that he supports Davis' "willingness to stand for her First Amendment rights," and if elected, would have people download marriage licenses on the Internet to file at clerk's offices just like other documents.

Conway, his Democratic opponent, has said he supports a new state law that would protect clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
bureaucrats protecting bureaucrats
 
yXsD4tt.png



dz1Vbpx.png
 
Last edited:
Does she enforce all the biblical marriage laws or is it just (mysteriously) this one which she finds to be important?

EDIT:

Guess that answers my question.

How are you able to twist a "moral objection" into "enforcing all the biblical marriage laws"?

I don't care if the broad is a homo herself or into beastiality she's buckin' the feds and for that I commend her.
 
How are you able to twist a "moral objection" into "enforcing all the biblical marriage laws"?

She has a shit first amendment argument if she's not religiously consistent.



I don't care if the broad is a homo herself or into beastiality she's buckin' the feds and for that I commend her.

Yes, fuck laws, let's let public officials just decide day to day when and how they do their jobs. What could possibly go wrong?

quEMHfX.gif
 
Last edited:
She has a shit first amendment argument if she's not religiously consistent.

Yes, fuck laws, let's let public officials just decide day to day when and how they do their jobs. What could possibly go wrong?

I've only read of you invoking a constitutional amendment to support her position, yet another twist from her statement of "deeply held religious beliefs"...

Once again you're going through mental gymnastics to discredit her stance against the feds...........Why?

Is it because you dislike her personally or is it because you support the feds, or is it something altogether different?
 
Bunch of folks wanting to turn this thread into another debate about homo marriage....

Would you please go find one of the countless other discussions on that matter and leave this thread for discussing standing up to the feds...
 
Would you please go find one of the countless other discussions on that matter and leave this thread for discussing standing up to the feds...

You can stand up to the feds and still be hopelessly wrong. Recall George Wallace, who proclaimed, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" and then 5 months later stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to try to prevent federal troops from enforcing racial integration at the university. Was he a hero or just a bigot who didn't give a damn about the rule of law?
 
She holds a position within a secular government. It is the law to give a marriage liscence to an LGBT couple. If she doesn't like it she can quit. There is no defense for her actions.
 
With the new information out on this I can't help but feel the way I'd imagine I would feel if I was counting on Obama to protect my rights.

Sorry I don't stand behind this sort of hypocrisy. She's not standing up to the Feds, she IS the Feds.
 
She holds a position within a secular government. It is the law to give a marriage liscence to an LGBT couple. If she doesn't like it she can quit. There is no defense for her actions.

The law of the land is lawlessness anyway. You can't judge her on moral grounds. You can only judge her on the grounds which are the basis for the law those judges conjured.

She isn't respecting the "dignity" of the institution (of either gay marriage or SCOTUS circus).

Popular opinion says her actions are offensive. That's what she is guilty of.

Gay marriage decision took a big dump on the Constitution so I see it as laughable that people applaud that decision which threw the rule of law out the window and now everyone is saying she must respect the rule of law.

She's fighting for her "right to express her identity". She should be celebrated like everyone else who's doing the same thing.
 
To me, this woman is in error. If her faith tells her she can't participate in what her job legally demands of her, she should resign in good conscience, especially being a government employee. She has no protections and really no valid argument.

This is a case where the Religious community should show some consistency and intellectual honesty... she is brave, but wrong.
 
Back
Top